Introduction
Welcome to our final lesson in the module on models of consensual non-monogamy. In our previous discussions, we explored different relationship structures, culminating in solo polyamory and relationship anarchy, which both emphasize a high degree of personal autonomy and intentional design. This naturally leads to a crucial question: if we're not using pre-defined social scripts, how do we actually build the "rules of the road" for our relationships?
Today, we will address that question directly. Our learning outcome is to evaluate the function of prescriptive versus descriptive rules in constructing relationship agreements. Understanding this distinction is a critical step in building the personalized, practical framework you're aiming for, as it dictates how you and your partners define expectations, navigate changes, and maintain trust.
The Foundation: Rules vs. Boundaries
Before we dive into prescriptive and descriptive frameworks, it's essential to grasp a more fundamental concept: the difference between a "rule" and a "boundary." These terms are often used interchangeably, but in the context of relationship agreements, their distinction is significant.
A rule typically seeks to control another person's behavior, while a boundary is about what you will do to take care of yourself in response to a situation. Let's watch a short video that clarifies this key difference.
The video 'Boundaries Not Rules' from the Relationship Anarchy channel offers a concise explanation of this concept, arguing that focusing on personal boundaries fosters more trust and autonomy than imposing rules on partners.
Please watch the segment from 01:51 to 03:01. Focus on how the presenter contrasts a rule, which tells someone else what to do, with a boundary, which is about owning your own choices and comfort level.
As the video explains, rules often come from a place of fear and an attempt to prevent a partner from doing something that might hurt us. Boundaries, on the other hand, empower you to define your own limits and decide how you will respond if they are crossed.
This image provides a helpful visual summary of the distinction:
This distinction between controlling others (rules) and managing yourself (boundaries) is the philosophical underpinning for the different ways relationship agreements can be structured.
Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Agreements
In the polyamorous community, the concepts of "rules" and "boundaries" are often framed through the lens of prescriptive and descriptive agreements.
- Prescriptive agreements are a set of instructions about how relationships should operate. They prescribe behavior.
- Descriptive agreements are a way of talking about how relationships are actually arranged in day-to-day life. They describe reality.
To explore this in detail, please read the following article, which clearly defines these two approaches.
Descriptive Versus Prescriptive Hierarchy
The article 'Descriptive Versus Prescriptive Hierarchy' provides a clear and practical breakdown of these two approaches to relationship agreements.
Please read the sections titled 'What descriptive hierarchy means' and 'What prescriptive hierarchy means.' Pay attention to the core idea and the practical examples provided for each.
To synthesize that information, here is a comparative summary:
| Aspect | Prescriptive Agreements | Descriptive Agreements |
|---|---|---|
| Function | To provide a set of rules or instructions. | To provide a snapshot or observation. |
| Focus | How things should or must be. | How things currently are. |
| Example | "A partner is only allowed one overnight stay per week with another person." | "A partner currently spends about one night a week with another person due to our schedules." |
| Goal | Predictability, structure, and security. | Flexibility, accuracy, and organic evolution. |
| Primary Benefit | Reduces ambiguity and provides a clear sense of security. | Adapts easily to change and reflects the reality of relationships. |
| Primary Drawback | Can be rigid, limiting autonomy and failing to adapt to change. | Can be ambiguous, leading to drift or unstated assumptions. |
Evaluating the Nuance: Stated vs. Actual Rules
The distinction between prescriptive and descriptive seems clear, but in practice, it can be blurry. Your background in social research will attune you to the gap that can exist between what people say they believe and how they actually behave. A similar dynamic can occur here.
Sometimes, what is presented as a "descriptive" reality is, in fact, an unstated "prescriptive" rule. For instance, stating "I live with my spouse, so they are my primary partner" sounds descriptive. However, it often carries an implicit prescription that this partner's needs will always take precedence.
The next reading offers a critical perspective on this, arguing that we should be cautious about how life circumstances like marriage or cohabitation are used to justify hierarchy.
Demystifying Hierarchy in Non-Monogamous Relationships
The article 'Demystifying Hierarchy in Non-Monogamous Relationships' challenges the notion of a purely 'descriptive' hierarchy, suggesting it often conceals prescriptive assumptions.
Please read from the beginning down to the line 'But we have to write it as we go.' Focus on how the author argues that descriptive hierarchy can be 'prescriptive hierarchy in disguise' and the examples given (marriage, co-parenting, cohabitation).
This critique is vital for evaluation. It highlights that the function of a statement within a relationship agreement isn't just about its literal wording (descriptive vs. prescriptive), but about the power dynamics it creates or reinforces. As the author points out, simply cohabiting with a partner doesn't inherently require elevating that relationship above all others—platonic roommates don't do this. The decision to do so is a choice that establishes a prescriptive element, even if it's framed as a simple description of circumstances.
Practical Application: A Hybrid Approach and Living Agreements
Given the benefits and drawbacks of each approach, very few relationships are purely one or the other. A more robust and resilient strategy is often a hybrid model that uses a living agreement.
- A Hybrid Model: This approach uses a few core prescriptive rules to protect fundamental needs (e.g., emotional safety, specific time commitments) while allowing most other aspects of the relationship to be descriptive and flexible.
- A Living Agreement: This is a document or understanding that is explicitly designed to be revisited and changed over time. Instead of a rigid contract, it's a dynamic snapshot of your current agreements, built on a foundation of shared values.
The article "Descriptive Versus Prescriptive Hierarchy" (resource LINK), which you read earlier, offers excellent practical advice on this. It suggests starting with shared values (honesty, safety, autonomy), creating a living agreement, and establishing rituals for regular check-ins. These practices allow partners to navigate the natural tension between the need for stability (often served by prescriptive rules) and the need for growth (served by descriptive flexibility). The goal is to ensure that any rules serve the people in the relationship, not the other way around.
Conclusion
Today we have moved from the "what" of relationship structures to the "how" of relationship agreements. By evaluating the function of prescriptive and descriptive rules, you have gained a critical tool for designing your own relational framework.
Key Takeaways:
- Rules vs. Boundaries: Rules attempt to control others, while boundaries are about managing yourself and your own choices.
- Prescriptive vs. Descriptive: Prescriptive agreements are instructions for how relationships should be, providing security but risking rigidity. Descriptive agreements are observations of how relationships are, providing flexibility but risking ambiguity.
- Evaluation is Key: The stated form of a rule (descriptive) can sometimes mask its true function (prescriptive). It's crucial to examine the power dynamics that agreements create.
- The Hybrid Solution: A practical approach often involves a "living agreement" that blends a few core prescriptive rules for safety and stability with a broader descriptive and flexible framework.
Preview of the Next Lesson
Having concluded our module on relationship models and agreements, we will now shift our focus to the internal experiences that shape these connections. Our next module, "The Psychology of Sexual Desire and Response," will begin by exploring the foundational theories of human sexual arousal. We will start by describing major models of the human sexual response cycle and how context and relationship factors modulate arousal.